Legal Research
Cases
Karam v The King

Karam v The King

Case [2024] VSCA 164 19 July 2024

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0062

JOE KARAM	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	T FORREST JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 July 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 164
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Karam [2024] VCC 127 (Judge Mullaly)

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE DETERMINED BY SINGLE JUDGE PURUSANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Theft, conduct endangering persons and causing injury intentionally – Applicant drove stolen vehicle at dark skinned victims while suffering drug induced psychosis – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Whether sentencing judge erred by failing to adequately reduce maximum total sentence indicated at sentence indication hearing despite new material advanced at the plea – Whether open to sentencing judge to find that offending motivated by hatred or prejudice toward dark skinned people – Whether sentencing judge failed to mitigate sentence by reference to remorse – Leave to appeal refused.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Ms H Anderson
Respondent:		Ms S Clancy
Solicitors
Applicant:	Valos Black & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

T FORREST JA:

On 5 October 2023 the applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of theft, two charges of conduct endangering persons and one charge of causing injury intentionally on indictment M12470833A. The applicant also pleaded guilty on 19 February 2024 to a related summary offence of failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident and a charge of possession of a drug of dependence on indictment M12470833B. On 19 February 2024 the applicant was sentenced for this offending as set out in the table below.[1]
[1]DPP v Karam [2024] VCC 127 (‘Sentencing reasons’).

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Theft	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year’s imprisonment	1 month
2	Conduct endangering persons	5 years’ imprisonment	1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment	8 months
3	Conduct endangering persons	5 years’ imprisonment	2 years’ imprisonment	8 months
4	Causing injury intentionally	10 years’ imprisonment	4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment	Base
Related Summary Offence
5	Failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident	8 months’ imprisonment	4 months’ imprisonment	2 months
Indictment M12470833B
1	Possession of a drug of dependence	5 years’ imprisonment	2 months’ imprisonment	N/A
Total Effective Sentence:		6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period:		4 years and 9 months
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		Nil
Section 6AAA Statement:		8 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months
Other Relevant Orders: Driver licence cancellation and disqualification. Forfeiture order.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on four grounds, namely:
(1)The individual sentences imposed on charges 2, 3 and 4 on Indictment M12470833A were each manifestly excessive.
(2)The sentencing judge erred by failing to adequately reduce the maximum total effective sentence indicated at the sentence indication hearing despite the changes in mitigating factors accepted at the plea hearing, which were not…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Karam v The King

Details

AGLC: Karam v The King [2024] VSCA 164
Case: [2024] VSCA 164
Decision Date: 19 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Karam v The King, the applicant, Mr. Karam, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales on a conviction of theft, and offences involving conduct endangering persons and causing injury intentionally. The Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had erred in various respects in the sentencing process.

The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had erred by not adequately reducing the maximum total sentence indicated at the sentence indication hearing despite new material advanced at the plea. The applicant also argued that it was not open to the sentencing judge to find that the offending was motivated by hatred or prejudice toward dark skinned people, and that the sentencing judge failed to mitigate the sentence by reference to remorse. The Crown, on the other hand, argued that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the matters relevant to the sentencing process.

The High Court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the matters relevant to the sentencing process. The Court held that it was open to the sentencing judge to find that the offending was motivated by hatred or prejudice toward dark skinned people, and that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the applicant’s remorse in imposing the sentence. The Court further held that the sentencing judge was not required to reduce the maximum total sentence indicated at the sentence indication hearing despite new material advanced at the plea. The leave to appeal was refused.

The Court did not make any orders in relation to the applicant’s appeal.

Orders